Oscar Pistorius (Blade Runner) Arrested (Read 549 times)

Not trying to be a pedant, but I don't think you meant "mitigating" here. Don't want you to get jumped for misspeaking.

That said, domestic violence can be mitigating in a sense under law because it can be viewed as a "heat of passion" kind of thing rather than premeditated murder. This is usually a distinction between second and first degree murder. But I don't think most lawyers would call that mitigation exactly. Mitigation usually refers to an excuse or justification for the act or something about your background that indicates that you should get lesser punishment.

Not trying to be a pedant, but I don't think you meant "mitigating" here. Don't want you to get jumped for misspeaking.

That said, domestic violence can be mitigating in a sense under law because it can be viewed as a "heat of passion" kind of thing rather than premeditated murder. This is usually a distinction between second and first degree murder. But I don't think most lawyers would call that mitigation exactly. Mitigation usually refers to an excuse or justification for the act or something about your background that indicates that you should get lesser punishment.

You are correct, in "heat of the moment" I completely selected the wrong word. My mistake and thank you for catching it.

mitigating --> precipitating

"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

I also suspect killing with a gun also makes one feel less guilty compared with using other means. It's quick and can be executed from a distance w/o close contact.

Except that all available data (only one example) indicates that the vast majority of fatal shootings are at not much further than arm's length; hardly "from a distance". Standard defensive pistol training is typically focused from only 7 yards out, in to contact distance.

I think we will find Oscar was quite close and personal when he shot her.

"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

It's a factor in as much as it should make it easier to convict him, yes.

It's a factor because the victim was shot 4 times with the suspect's gun.

The question was whether people should be surprised that Oscar had been charged with murder. My contention was that it was not surprising given what little we knew. I stated 4 things we knew about the case that I thought would be of interest to the Police and that made it, in my mind, not the least bit surprising that Oscar had been charged with murder:

This is significant because it establishes he was physically capable of doing the shooting. He not only owned guns (including the murder weapon) but he was by all accounts an excellent shot and had even bragged of being lethal. It also makes it highly unlikely that the shooting could have been accidental, given how experienced a gun handler he was.

Police had been called to the home multiple times for "allegations of a domestic nature.

This reinforces motive. Unfortunately in most crimes like this one the boyfriend is guilty--a history of domestic "allegations" only strengthens that motive.

So I stand by my original opinion which is that given these circumstances, nobody should be surprised that Oscar was charged with murder.

Then, in one of the more dramatic leaps of imagination we've seen in some time on this board, spaniel went straight from there to the idea that I was stereotyping gun owners in general, and calling HIM a murderer, specifically. There is thinking every thread is about you, and then there's this. This required a special kind of crazy. He didn't pass go or collect $200, he went straight to:

So I'm a murderer in the wings too, I just haven't found an excuse to shoot anyone yet?

That alone was impressive but he didn't stop there. He proceeded, over the next several pages, to carry on both sides of a heated gun-control debate--his side and the one he imaged me to be taking, and thus we find ourselves here.

Wow. If this is serious than it's likely the strangest post I've read in I can't say how long.

I suspect a decent troll so I give it a 6 out of 10.

How is it strange? I've always thought if I have to slaughter a pig myself to eat pork I probably would choose to become a vegetarian.

Boiler Tom,

I say "feel". I don't mean to say it is legally less guilty when charged.

Spaniel,

Glad you finally brought up real data instead of just making assumptions.

BUT I don't understand what you mean you don't get my argument--you'll do whatever you STRONGLY INTEND to do, but you can do do whatever you feel like to do when it's convenient and can be easily achieved.

I never argue gun is the only weapon that can be used to kill a person. Now, what's the weapon(s) used in other 77% murder rate?

How is it strange? I've always thought if I have to slaughter a pig myself to eat pork I probably would choose to become a vegetarian.

Strange that in it shows a lack of understanding of human action in highly emotional situations. As Boiler mentioned, likely the last thing in his thought process during the act was guilt so your comment is irrelevant at best. This ain't Star trek and there ain't no Spock's in the house.

If you meant it to be more detached than say a knife or bat or hands, I could see the point but those are not the words you used.

Not sure how slaughtering an animal for food purposes and becoming a vegetarian has any relevance to a murder.

So back to the troll or choose words more clearly.

"He conquers who endures" - Persius "Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel

http://ncstake.blogspot.com/

DoppleBock

posted: 2/15/2013 at 2:16 PM

MikeyMike
I understand your logic ~ Given the facts that were released by the police, it was not suprising he could be a murderer
I would say more that I am suprised by the facts as I would be if any of you were a murderer. I tend to think people in the world are innocent and peach keen people until I hear facts to the contrary. Basically giving humanity the benefit of the doubt.
If someone shoots another person - Most likely they will be a gun owner ~ legit or illegal owner. Of the legal gun owners it is a very small % that end up shooting someone ... accidental or on purpose
THis is sad on so many levels. He would (Maybe was) someone kids with handicaps looked up to as inspirational.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
I'll have to keep this chart in mind my next vacation

This is significant because it establishes he was physically capable of doing the shooting. He not only owned guns (including the murder weapon) but he was by all accounts an excellent shot and had even bragged of being lethal. It also makes it highly unlikely that the shooting could have been accidental, given how experienced a gun handler he was.

That alone was impressive but he didn't stop there. He proceeded, over the next several pages, to carry on both sides of a heated gun-control debate--his side and the one he imaged me to be taking, and thus we find ourselves here.

I'm sure it will all end now that we've cleared that up. Ha!

You could easily have cleared it up by answering the question about why "this was not a surprise" for Oscar by clarifying why you would feel differently about another gun enthusiast, such as myself. Instead, you kept digging the hole with his "unhealthy interest in guns" and how weird it was for him to take a guest to a shooting range, only confirming the root motives behind your comment as seeing something inherently bad/violent/unstable in him because he was into firearms. You indicated that you thought this odd behavior last fall, before this tragedy. Absolutely nothing to do with this completely new explanation above, until now, pages later.

No, I don't believe this was what motivated you to post the original comment at all. But way to jump back in after wanting it to end, you didn't let the Friday meltdown crew down.

"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

In the passion of the moment ~ I have wanted to smack my wife or kids, but it goes against every fiber of who I am, so I never have. No matter how much emotion is flying, how much rage, I could not. But again I never have acted out in rage with physical action in my 44 years.

I own a gun, I would never even go near it if I was angry at a family member.

So, although an argument of passion and loss of control can be somewhat true ~ I do not buy it as a defense for actions taken. You have to be the kind of person that can imagine picking up a gun and shooting a person could be an actual choice to make in the 1st place.

As far as eating animals ~ Best slit their throat of shoot them in a main artery and let them bleed out and then come back for butchering. I have never done it, but I come from farming stock and butchering chickens, pigs or cattle was common.

Except that all available data (only one example) indicates that the vast majority of fatal shootings are at not much further than arm's length; hardly "from a distance". Standard defensive pistol training is typically focused from only 7 yards out, in to contact distance.

I think we will find Oscar was quite close and personal when he shot her.

The "distance" is to be in contrast with "close contact" (they're in the same sentence)--You don't have to be in contact with the person (7 yards away) when you shot him.